|
2006-46(R81) LeConte's Thrasher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
17 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I think the
description is too brief to eliminate the similar Crissal Thrasher.
Habitat is also a bit suspect for a LeConte's
Thrasher, and Crissal Thrashers are common around Welcome Spring. |
|
2nd round |
18 Feb 2007 |
No, ID |
Location and
description suggest Crissal Thrasher |
|
Ronald R. |
6 Dec 22006 |
No, ID |
I think the
observation was too brief for a definitive evaluation of this species. In
addition, the eye color and undertail
coverts were not adequately described to eliminate crissal thrasher. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
My comments from the
first round still apply. |
|
Terry S. |
19 Oct 2006 |
No, ID |
I don't think
Crissal thrasher has been ruled out. This was a quick few at a fleeting
bird and distiguishing characteristics like eye color were not noted. |
|
2nd round |
20 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
As per my first
round comments. |
|
Mark S. |
21 Nov 2006 |
No, ID |
I'd like some
discussion on this. The habitat and tim of year, etc. seem unusual for
this species. I'm not sure that this couldn't
be either a Bendire's or a Curve-billed, and such a brief sighting may not
be enough to eliminate these similar species. |
|
2nd round |
25 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
My first round
comments apply. |
|
Larry T. |
23 Oct 2006 |
No, ID |
This short period of
observation make it hard to eliminate a Crissal Thrasher. |
|
2nd round |
15 Feb 2007 |
No, ID |
As before. |
|
Merrill W. |
29 Sep 2006 |
Acc |
Light, overall
color, plus light-colored undertail coverts rule out Crissal Thrasher,
which is probably the only other thrasher likely to be at this location at
this time of the year. |
|
2nd round |
20 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
No; agree that the
amount of observation is limited. Probably doesn't eliminate the
fact that it could also have been a Crissal. |
|
David W. |
29 Sep 2006 |
No, ID |
I am voting NO on this record in hopes of forcing it into the second round
(hopefully someone will else vote to accept). [I am sure the rest of the
Committee will appreciate the opportunity to vote on this bird twice
seeing as there are so few other records to review just now...]
Overall, the description is rather good (for example, I like the detail of
the dark line between the bill and eye, which is good for a Le Conte's).
However, although the total length of the bird was estimated spot-on, the
reported bill length of 6 cm was wildly off the reported lengths in
Cornell's website:
Le Conte's male: 2.33-3.11 cm
Le Conte's female: 2.43-3.09 cm
So, the actual length of the bill is, at best, half of the reported 6 cm.
I'd originally thought the Crissal thrasher would have a much closer
match, but even that species falls far short of 6 cm, and is only
margianlly longer-billed than a Le Conte's:
Crissal male: 2.92-3.21 cm
Crissal female: 2.93-3.42 cm
So, the estimate of bill length was far off, irrespective of which
locally-occurring mimid the observer might have seen. I am therefore
tempted to simply discount this field mark as a lousy estimate (of the
type we all make now and again), even it better supports a Crissal.
One more thought, since I hope this will go to the second round:
A juvenile Crissal (note the time of year) is overall paler than an adult.
So a juvenile would thus slightly better match this report than would an
adult Crissal. However, juvenile Crissal's also tend to be rustier in tone
than adults, which weakens that argument.
I think this was a Le Conte's, but I'd like to hear the opinions of the
rest of the Committee before voting to accept. |
|
2nd round |
19 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I've said enough in
the previous round |
2006-47(R81) Parakeet Auklet
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I've put off voting
on this record to try and ascertain if there have ever been any inland
Parakeet Auklet records. So far I've
been unable to confirm any accepted inland records (including none in
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, or California). Regarding the description, I'm
at a loss what the reported bird could have been. The orange "rounded"
bill, bicolored body, and dark head with a white stripe extending from the
eye to the nape all fit a Parakeet Auklet. The second white stripe is
puzzling and and perhaps better for a Rhino Auklet (also with no confirmed
inland records). I'd like to have seen more on the shape and size relative
the loons and grebes it was reported with. |
|
2nd round |
18 Feb 2007 |
No, ID |
As per first round
comments. |
|
Ronald R. |
6 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
This is a difficult
record to effectively evaluate. The description is brief, but appears to
describe a parakeet auklet, a rather
distinct species when well observed. However, this would be the first
inland record for this pelagic species (away from coastal states) and I
don't feel the submitted record is sufficiently complete for such an
unusual record. In addition, it is far south of normal records for this
species--pelagic records from Oregon and California are rare. I would like
further discussion of this record. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I agree with other
committee members that the description, especially of the head, does not
fit a parakeet auklet, and that such an outstanding record should be
better documented for acceptance. |
|
Terry S. |
19 Oct 2006 |
No, ID |
It is hard to
imagine this seabird so far inland. |
|
2nd round |
26 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I believe photos and
better documentation are needed to verify this sighting given that the
species has never been seen inland. |
|
Mark S. |
21 Nov 2006 |
No, ID |
I'm not sure what
this gentleman saw, but obviously a sighting of this magnitude needs
stronger evidence. |
|
2nd round |
25 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
As per my first
round comments. |
|
Larry T. |
23 Oct 2006 |
No, ID |
Not sure what he was
looking at. I have to wonder if the observer has any experiance with this
bird. The description of the head doesn't fit the bird except for the red
bill.
The field guides weren't the greatest 25 years ago. This would have been a
great record if we had a better description or some photos to go with it. |
|
2nd round |
24 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
There just isn't
enough to go on with what would be a first inland record. A record of this
magnitude should have some solid
physical evidence to go with it. |
|
Merrill W. |
19 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
I feel that the
description is adequate, plus the time of observation is certainly time to
eliminate any water bird that might resemble this species. The red
bill, the size, and the behavior seem to me to indicate that this is the
only possible species he could have come up with. |
|
2nd round |
30 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
Probably needs
better documentation for a state record. |
|
David W. |
28 Sep 2006 |
No, ID |
I think that Parakeet auklet may be the best match for this bird, but I am
troubled by some of the field marks:
1) Eyering. I've not seen any illustrations/photos of a Parakeet auklet
with an eyering. It is possible that the observer was referring to the
whitish iris.
2) Eyebrow stripe. I have not seen any illustrations/photos of this
species with even a hint of an eyebrow/supercillium stripe. Rhinocerus
auklets match this field mark much better (and their thick bills can look
orange), but the location of the facial stripes on that species isn't a
good match to this record. I've seen photos of Least auklets which show a
vague, pale eyebrow stripe (their bills can be partially red, but not
entirely).
3) Eyestripe. The description of the eysetripe starting at the bottom of
the eyering does not match any but possibly one (vaguely) of the photos
I've looked at. I suppose "lower half" might be written up in that way,
but it troubles me a bit.
I would like to hear some discussion of this species before I vote to
accept. In the positive column, the timing of the migration is good for a
Parakeet auklet (though I personally have not heard of records outside the
coastal states - anyone else?). |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
This record is just
too sketchy (sparse & imperfect match) for the magnitude of sighting this
would represent. |
2006-48 Gray Hawk
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Intriguing record.
Gray Hawks are almost never found outside of their limited geographic
range in the US. I believe there is an accepted record in Kansas (mid
April 1990), and less than 10 in New Mexico. Although Gray Hawk numbers
have been steadily increasing in Arizona for the last 20 years, they are
almost never seen north of local breeding areas (Gila / Verde River
drainage is the furthest north breeding area). So a Gray Hawk is very
unlikely candidate for a extralimital
occurrence, however, the description is rather convincing and key
characteristics are rather well described. |
|
Ronald R. |
10 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
This appears to
adequately describe an adult gray hawk and eliminate other species,
including gyrfalcon which was not discussed (tail different). The apparent
feeding behavior is also consistent with this species and not similar to
gyrfalcon or goshawk. I am a little troubled by the length of time until
the record was submitted, but I feel the observer had sufficient
recollection. |
|
Terry S. |
19 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
The observer has
given excellent detail for this sighting. Other similar species have been
evaluated and carefully eliminated. A photograph would be helpful for
evaluation but the observer's familiarity with the species and carsful
observations convinces me this is an acceptable record. |
|
Mark S. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
This is a well
written and comprehensive description of a distinctive species from an
observer familiar with this and similar
species. As noted, the only real alternative would be Northern Goshawk,
which should be eliminated by the head markings. In addition, though the
observer did not note this, the fluffy white undertail coverts of goshawk
would be hard to miss with such a good view. Also, the behavior seems more
consistant with Gray Hawk.
The only remaining issue is the single-observer, no photo or physical
evidence, state-first record. As we really don't have an alternative
mechanism, I'm voting to accept this record on its merit, and really think
that acceptance is appropriate in circumstances like this, with a
well-seen, distinctive species and such good documentation. |
|
Larry T. |
21 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
I guess the best
that can be done with this is to put it on the hypothetical list.
I one thing I didn't put in the description for why this bird may have
showed up this far north was that was the year of the devastating (100
year) floods throughout the S.W. that destroyed a lot of riparian
corridors that may have made it wander farther north of it's breeding
range.It may be another 100 years for the next one! |
|
Merrill W. |
19 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
Good description of
all the salient features. |
|
David W. |
29 Sep 2006 |
Acc |
Nicely detailed description. |
2006-49 Broad-winged Hawk
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Very general
description, but nice photographs, documenting that at least two
Broad-winged Hawks were observed. |
|
2nd round |
21 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
The photograph
convinced me that at least one Broad-winged Hawk was observed. However,
Mark certainly brings up a good point, really the only thing we have to go
on with this record is the photographs. In the past, we've discussed
minimum standards for reviewing a record, but have never come to any
resolution. Is it acceptable if someone submits a photograph with no
written description? |
|
Ronald R. |
10 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I am accepting the
juvenile from the first photo, but not the other 5 individuals reported. I
don't feel the written descriptions
are specific to the birds observed--they are simply a rehash of general ID
characteristics. I don't feel the four adults and other juvenile are
sufficiently described as observed. The second photo has insufficient
detail to be useful for ID. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID/Acc |
I am listing this as
a NID as I feel we need to separate out the documented individual bird(s)
in the photos from the generic
descriptions in the submitted record. I am voting to accept the bird in
the first photo, but nothing else (the second bird has no identifying
marks except shape which is not sufficiently distinctive to rule out other
species (e.g., red-shouldered hawk)). I would like to have this individual
in the first photo separated from the other records. It would be fine to
mention that this bird was seen with additional likely BW hawks, but that
no documentation was submitted for them. What do the others think? |
|
Terry S. |
19 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
12 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I am willing to give
this observer any benefit of the doubt. He more than any one has in the
past provided numerous good records and photos of Broad-winged Hawks in
Utah. I am convinced he saw the number of Broad-wings reported. |
|
Mark S. |
8 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
This is an odd
record, written for multiple birds but including only a generic
description of the proposed species and no description of any of the
actual birds seen. I'm left with two photos, both of which look
narrow-winged and long-tailed for Broad-winged Hawk, although maybe within
the range of variation for the species. I can't really think of any other
species they could be, however, so I believe the i.d. is correct. The wing
shape in photo B is good for Broad-winged. I checked a photo I took in
Veracruz this year that shows about 300 Broad-winged Hawks soaring
overhead, and found a very few (maybe 2 or 3) among them that had about
the same shape as the birds in the photos accompanying this record. The
vast majority showed birds with broader wings and shorter tails, with less
separation between the trailing edge of the wing and the base of the tail.
However, I think the i.d. is correct, but do not like the nature of the
record, which provides no real written description to supplement the
photos, and would like some discussion on this issue. |
|
2nd round |
25 Jan 2007 |
Acc/No, ID |
I still have great
reservations about how this record is written, and lacking any written
description of any of the birds in
particular, my vote is based only upon the photos, and only the first
photo shows enough detail to be accepted in the absence of a written
description. I'm voting to accept the bird in photo A, but none of the
others. |
|
Larry T. |
21 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
28 Jan 20007 |
Acc |
I have no doubt that
the observer saw 6 Broad-winged Hawks. Although I agree that only one of
the birds have been significantly documented. Without at least a brief
description of each individual bird I would vote just to accept a single
record.
I also think this is a species that probably should be taken off the
review list. They certainly aren't that rare in migration if your in the
right areas (high peaks in north/south running mountain ranges) of the
state. There must have been 10 seen last year alone. Although not all were
documented!! I shouldn't complain about writing birds up I'm as bad as
anyone about doing it. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Good fieldmarks,
adequate photo. |
|
2nd round |
20 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I still vote to
accept this sighting based on photo A and the credentials of the observer.
He certainly has more experience than I have on this species. |
|
David W. |
29 Sep 2006 |
Acc |
Amazing numbers for Utah. |
|
2nd round |
14 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I agree with more or
less everything other members have written on this record.
1) The description isn't actually tied to any one bird or photo. It
discusses field marks as if for a general field guide entry rather than a
record. Very odd.
2) The observer has very good credentials.
3) The wings seem a bit straight and narrow (and photo A does not show the
classic trailing edge shape I am familiar with). However, if one looks at
the Cornell site, one can find (3) photos of an adult Broad-winged hawk
from Derby Hill with wing and tail shape/proportions similar to photo A.
Raptors do seem to considerably change their aerondynamic shape in
response to different conditions/flight.
4) The tail does seem rather long and distant from trailing edge of the
wing in photo B for a Broad-winged.
However, I can't think of a better candidate for photo A other than a
Broad-winged hawk.
I like the option taken by others on the Committee to vote for SOME of the
individuals. Specifically, I am voting to accept one immature bird shown
in photo A. In retrospect, the description is good, but not tied to any of
the birds, so I am left voting mostly on the photos. |
2006-50 Prothonotary Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I could go either
way on this record. The description is absolutely minimal, but does cover
enough of the characteristics to
identify this distinctive warbler. |
|
2nd round |
21 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
|
|
Ronald R. |
10 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
While a very brief
description, I feel the observer provided enough detail to rule out other
warbler species. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
While this is a
brief description, I feel there is sufficient detail to rule out other
species. The white undertail coverts rules
out yellow, Wilson's, Hooded and Oporonis warblers. Bright yellow head
extending down part of back rules out Canada and Magnolia, while lack of
wingbars rules out blue-winged. |
|
Terry S. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
This is a rather
succinct description but adequate to describe this distinct species. |
|
2nd round |
12 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Even though the
description is scant I am still accepting the record. |
|
Mark S. |
8 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I'd like to see some
discussion on this record. The description is scant, and the reference to
a black back is puzzling for this species. The date is fine, but habitat a
bit odd (though in migration, maybe not important). I'm just not
comfortable with this record, even though the species should be
distinctive. |
|
2nd round |
25 Jan 2007 |
Acc |
I'll go along with
the rest of the committee on this one based upon the how distinct this
birds is, even though the observer
didn't even bother to describe the wing color - one of the most
distinctive parts of this bird. The only thing the eliminates a female (or
capless male - they do exist) Wilson's is the white undertail coverts. Odd
to note this detail and not the wing color. |
|
Larry T. |
21 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
I guess the
description is good enough for this distinct species. |
|
2nd round |
28 Jan 2007 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Barely enough of a
description for this species. Would like to have seen how this
observer eliminated similar species. Just saying that it isn't like
other western warblers hardly justifies making it this species. |
|
2nd round |
20 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I agree with the
others on the committee, that the description is not as detailed as it
should be, but still it seems adequate enough to be this particular
species. |
|
David W. |
15 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
Sparce description is barely adequate but presents convincing set of field
marks that seem to eliminate other species. |
|
2nd round |
14 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
I'm sticking with my
first round vote. Note that the record did not say black back, but "slate"
colored back. That's more
ambiguous and could refer to the tone of gray rather than shade. |
2006-51(R80) Pileated Woodpecker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I don't think the
description is sufficient to definitively conclude a Pileated Woodpecker
was observed. While some of the
characteristics observed are a good match for a Pileated Woodpecker (e.g.
large size, white wing linings with black tips) many others are confusing
("wings were wider than the body length": PiWo are long with long necks
and long tails) or not quite correct ("flanks were white": PiWo have black
flanks; and "typical undulating flight pattern": PiWo's flight pattern is
very atypical for woodpeckers with deep crow-like wingbeats, and a rather
level flight pattern (only very slightly undulating at best)). |
|
2nd round |
18 Feb 2007 |
No, ID |
description is too
brief, and described flight style is inconsistent with Pileated Woodpecker |
|
Ronald R. |
10 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
There are some
reported ID characteristics that do not support pileated woodpecker.
First, white flanks were reported--this is not consistant with pileated.
Second, the flight pattern ("typical undulating flight" of woodpeckers) is
definitely not consistent with the deep, irregular wingbeats of a pileated.
In addition, the bold white head and neck stripe was not mentioned. I am
not sure what species was seen, but these described ID characteristics
make me doubt the bird was a
pileated. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
My comments from the
first round still apply. |
|
Terry S. |
13 Nov 2006 |
No, ID |
While this certainly
sounds like a Pileated Woodpecker I believe we need more to go on than a
fly-by sighting that was seen more than 25 years ago. |
|
2nd round |
26 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
Better documentation
including photos are needed to consider acceptance. |
|
Mark S. |
8 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
Yet another
tantalizing Pileated Woodpecker record that doesn't quite reach the
standard we need for accepting this species. Acorn Woodpecker, a species
known to be in the area, was not considered, though the black underparts
should eliminate this species. A distant, flying bird, seen by a single
observer (who had no experience with the species) with no physical
evidence or photo, does not justify accepting this as a state-first
record. If we get a well-documented record of this species in Utah that
fits the pattern of the many older records, then maybe we should re-visit
records such as this one. |
|
2nd round |
25 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
Nothing to change my
mind on this one. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Nov 2006 |
No, ID |
I'm not what
he saw. Most of the description sounds good for Pileated but I'm not sure
where the white flanks fit in. I think this one needs to have a pic
without a better description. |
|
2nd round |
28 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
As above. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Two minutes seems
like an adequate amount of time to see the pertinent fieldmarks which are
mentioned in the description. |
|
2nd round |
30 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I defer to the
judgment of other committee members who suggest that a more detailed
description would be desired before accepting this record. |
|
David W. |
17 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I defer to the
better judgement of others on the Committee who are correct in pointing
out the neck stripe/flanks issue weakens this record (though I believe one
can solve both of these issues if one assumes the neck stripe, which
extends under the wing, is what was being referred to by the observer as a
white flank). |
2006-52(R78) Magnificent Hummingbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
This a very marginal
record and I could go either way on this one. While large size (5") and
green tail with white tips should rule out all other North American
Hummingbird species, other characteristics described are suspect (wings
brownish, white underparts, no mention of throat or face pattern). |
|
2nd round |
18 Feb 2007 |
No, ID |
as per first round
comments |
|
Ronald R. |
10 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
While this bird may
well have been a female magnificant HB, the written description is not
sufficient to rule out an immature
Anna's HB. In addition, "brownish wings" and "white underparts" do not
really describe the color of a female magnificant HB. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
My comments from the
first round still apply. |
|
Terry S. |
15 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
This is a very
distinctive species and was observed by someone familiar with the species. |
|
2nd round |
27 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
After reviewing
other comments, I agree that this is not an adequate description. |
|
Mark S. |
8 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
I'd like to see some
discussion on this record, in that it seems that the size of the bird is
the chief (or only) characteristic separating this from Black-chinned
Hummingbird. Even though it states that Black-chinned were present for
comparison, I'm troubled by using size exclussively. Also, the underparts
are described as white, which seems inconsistant with Magnificent female,
that should have gray underparts - noticeably darker than what I would
call "white." I'd like to have
some discussion on this record. |
|
2nd round |
25 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
As per my first
round comments. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Nov 2006 |
No, ID |
Not a very good
description of a Magnificent. I wouldn't call the underparts white. It
sounds more like a Black-chinned. |
|
2nd round |
28 Jan 2007 |
No, ID |
The description just
doesn't fit the species well enough for this record. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Seems like an
adequate description, especially the size and the manner of flight. |
|
2nd round |
30 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Still seems like an
adequate description to me from a more than careful observer. |
|
David W. |
17 Oct 2006 |
No, ID |
I am voting no on this in hopes of a second round discussion. |
|
2nd round |
22 Dec 2006 |
No, ID |
Well, I guess I'm
sticking with my "maybe" on this record. It's just a bit vague to be sure. |
2006-53 Eastern Phoebe
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Outstanding record |
|
Ronald R. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Very detailed
description--eliminates other species. |
|
Terry S. |
15 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Very Good
Description given including Tail movement. |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
An excellent
description. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Very nice write up. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Mentioned the
important aspects of this species, i.e., behavior and black and white
patterns. |
|
David W. |
26 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
Nice description & elimination of other species. |
2006-54 Eastern Phoebe
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Minimal, but
adequate description |
|
Ronald R. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good description. |
|
Terry S. |
15 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Very good
description |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good description
eliminates other similar species. How close are we to having enough E.
Phoebe records to take it off the
documentation requested list? It seems like these are being seen quite a
bit recently. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
This bird probably
winter in the Beaver Dam Wash. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
I like the
description and the tail dropping. |
|
David W. |
26 Oct 2006 |
Acc |
I am just a wee bit troubled by the description of the upperparts as being
olivy (-gray), as that doesn't conform to my experience, and is more
descriptive of Empidonax/Contopus flycatchers. But such shade nuances are
very subjective and other fieldmarks leave little doubt. |
2006-55 Black-throated Blue Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Nice thorough
description of a very unique warbler |
|
Ronald R. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Brief, but good
description of a distinctive bird. |
|
Terry S. |
15 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
A distinctive
species |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good description of
an unmistakeable bird. |
|
Larry T. |
28 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Good description of
a easy bird to ID. |
|
Merrill W. |
14 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Adequate
description, especially the white marking in the wing. |
|
David W. |
13 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
|
2006-56 Worm-eating Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Excellent record.
Very late date. |
|
Ronald R. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Outstanding photos
and very good description. |
|
Terry S. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Fantastic Photos and
great narrative |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Excellent
documentation and photos. |
|
Larry T. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
You can't document a
bird much better than this one. |
|
Merrill W. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Great photos.
Too bad I missed this one. |
|
David W. |
28 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
Much better photos than the ones I took... |
2006-57 Red-breasted Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Minimal description;
great photographs eliminate any possibility of a hybrid. |
|
Ronald R. |
25 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good detail in
description and nice photos are adequeate to eliminate a hybrid. |
|
Terry S. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
The photos are
very convincing to me that this is not a hybrid |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good photos and
description - I don't see any obvious signs of a hybrid on this bird. |
|
Larry T. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good photos.
Would have helped to have one from the front to rule out possibility of
hybridization, but then, we can't be all that choosey. Looks good. |
|
David W. |
30 Nov 2006 |
Acc |
I assume the white patch behind the eye seen only in photo A is an artifact
of a flash or some such thing (as it doesn't show up at all in the other
two photos) I do wonder whether the black & pale smudge in the auricular
region might not be a sign of some distant hybridization with a red-naped,
but the bird seems otherwise to be "pure", so I will vote for it. The
Birds of North America Online site (Cornell) shows such a smudge on adults
of this species and describes the daggetti subspecies as having the black
smudge on the ear coverts. It is not unlikely that the appearance of this
subspecies in general is influenced by gene flow between the S. r. ruber
and Red-naped. |
2006-58 Prairie Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Nice thorough
description |
|
Ronald R. |
25 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Nice description.
Probably the most similar bird is a female Townsend's which was not
discussed. The wing pattern, black
semicircle below the eye, and lack of tail pump should rule out this
species. |
|
Terry S. |
11 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Very good
description given by an observer familiar with the species |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good description
eliminates similar species. |
|
Larry T. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
|
|
Merrill W. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Very good
description. Helped to eliminate other species such as the Palm and
the Magnolia. |
|
David W. |
1 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Nice record. |
2006-59 Red Phalarope
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
8 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Nice record. Timing
is good for a Red Phalarope |
|
Ronald R. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Photos are
convincing. |
|
Terry S. |
11 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
While there isn't
much to go on with the written narrative, the photos are convincing (i.e.
blunt bill, chunky body, non-streaked back, head markings). |
|
Mark S. |
9 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Excellent artwork,
and the photos definitely show a winter plumage Red Phalarope. For this
late of a date, it would be the most likely phalarope species. |
|
Larry T. |
22 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Photos are good
enough to clinch the ID. |
|
Merrill W. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Photos showing back
and beak are diagnostic. Paintings add a nice touch.
Description was rather flowery. |
|
David W. |
7 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Interesting writeup, discussing the visual experience rather than just the
subject. Photos & fieldmarks are definitive. |
2006-60 Western Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Feb 2007 |
Acc |
Nice thorough
record: Complete description and nice series of photos. |
|
Ronald R. |
1 Mar 2007 |
Acc |
I think this is a
very well documented record that reduces most doubt about other species or
hybrids. While there still could be some glaucous-winged gull in its far
past, I think the evidence leans strongly toward a pure western gull. |
|
Terry S. |
31 Jan 2007 |
Acc |
Very good
documentation and review of possible hybridization. The observer has done
an excellent job in documenting this first state record. |
|
Mark S. |
25 Jan 2007 |
Acc |
This is a very well
documented record of a potentially difficult i.d. As the observer notes,
the main problem is with "Olympic
Gull." However, this bird looks like a pure, or nearly pure, Western to
me, with a mantle too dark, primary tips too dark, and with too little
smudging on the head and nape for a hybrid. Although we can never be 100%
sure with gulls, I can't see much evidence of a hybrid in this bird. |
|
Larry T. |
25 Feb 2007 |
Acc |
I see nothing that I
have a problem with to not call this a Western Gull. Great record inland. |
|
Merrill W. |
30 Dec 2006 |
Acc |
Good description and
excellent photos. |
|
David W. |
1 Jan 2007 |
Acc |
I think the observer should have done a less cursory job in dismissing a
third-winter Slaty-backed gull as a possibility, as that species is in
many ways quite similar to a Western gull. However, the bulbous,
front-heavy shape of the bill, clearly visible in the excellent photos,
eliminates that possibility. The wing-tip pattern better fits a Western
gull as well, though with third-year Slaties the amount of white can vary.
I just got back from Washington where I saw a lot of Glauc-Winged x
Western hybrids, and I see no indication in the photos of this review bird
that it comes from any such shenanigans. |
|
